Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?  (Read 129428 times)

wdd81

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #560 on: May 06, 2009, 09:17:24 AM »
A few weeks into it I wanted to quit. A few months into it, I became numb. Now, it just seems normal.

contest-the

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #561 on: May 07, 2009, 10:43:32 AM »
Sounds like mind control stuff, wdd81! Don't you think?

kel

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #562 on: May 14, 2009, 11:14:36 AM »

The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy. The whole modern thought has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe.

The ordinary religion of the law school classroom is a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry.


Indeed -- today the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism. I saw the movie "Chicago" with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers.

The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law.

An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence. When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?

We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge. Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court. What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates?


Sandra Day O'Connor has maintained that law is indeed very stressful with way too many graduates having become disillusioned.

theme

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #563 on: May 15, 2009, 10:41:55 AM »

Sounds like mind control stuff, wdd81! Don't you think?


Strange diagram that of your avatar, contest - what does it mean?

I Love Therefore I Am

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #564 on: May 15, 2009, 11:20:31 AM »

[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies.

[...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.


In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
 

Don't you think this analysis is a little outdated by now?

lombardia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #565 on: May 19, 2009, 02:15:31 PM »

[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies.

[...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.


In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
 

Don't you think this analysis is a little outdated by now?


You mean, I Love, that the fact Marx said it a century and a half ago is a cause to worry, rendering it irrelevant nowdays?

lufthansa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #566 on: May 20, 2009, 10:24:19 AM »

[...] Instead of exploiting the slave, the master here tries to take care of the worker so that the worker can continue to work. This allows both master and slave to work for the master's master, work itself. But what is crucial about this is that the "taking care of" here or "feeding" of the slave is only feeding the slave such that the worker's work -- and not the worker himself -- can continue. The emphasis is upon work abstracted from the existence of the slave that provides the work. Thus the slave sinks below the conditions that he would be under if he were wrapped up in the feudal master/slave dialectic, because the master here is not concerned with his existence -- the master is "incompetent to assure the continued existence" of the slave, as Marx puts it. The slave cannot properly be a slave under capitalism. That is, it cannot be assured as to whether he will exist as a slave: his bare existence is threatened in the face of the abstract labor-power he temporarily embodies.

[...] The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.


In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
 

Don't you think this analysis is a little outdated by now?


You mean, I Love, that the fact Marx said it a century and a half ago is a cause to worry, rendering it irrelevant nowdays?


It may be a little bit irrelevant, but that does not mean we should not talk about it.

biblio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #567 on: May 20, 2009, 10:53:36 AM »

In other words, capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It creates its own grave-diggers by creating a class with interests diametrically opposed to its own, bringing them together and teaching them how to cooperate. The proletariat then comes to realize that it is a class that has nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by revolting against and overthrowing the bourgeoisie.
 

Don't you think this analysis is a little outdated by now?


You mean, I Love, that the fact Marx said it a century and a half ago is a cause to worry, rendering it irrelevant nowdays?


It may be a little bit irrelevant, but that does not mean we should not talk about it.


Indeed, lufthansa, it's a very provocative analysis, one which significance cannot be underestimated..
I mixed this myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust anybody!

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« Reply #568 on: May 23, 2009, 11:52:51 AM »
Yes.  I think that this profession fits my obsessive nature and love of citations.

molto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Hegel After Derrida
« Reply #569 on: May 25, 2009, 01:08:37 PM »

Well, if Derrida has managed to turn much of Western thought on its head, he has done so only by standing on the shoulders of Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger and Saussure. Through his statement that "God is dead" and his attack on Christianity and the Western metaphysical tradition, Nietzsche exploded the very center of Western thought, creating something of a religious void. But Westerners don't tolerate voids very well. Traditionally we don't pray to holes in the wall, devoutly mumbling "O sacred hole!" Unlike Taoists and Buddhists, we are inheritors and inhabitants of a worldview esteeming presence over absence -- icon over nonexistence -- wholes over holes. We relish the look, taste, texture and flagrance of pomegranates and poises -- of things. Thus we have tried to fill in this void in various ways, have tried to establish a new center: with Modernist art, with myth, with music, with poetry, with dream archetypes, by chanting Hare Krishna, or worshipping Kahuna, with scientific certainty, with structuralism.


Derrida was born on 15 July 1930, in El Biar, then French Algeria, into a Sephardic Jewish family that became French in 1870 when Crémieux Decree granted full French citizenship to the indigenous Jews of French colonial Algeria. He was the third of 5 children. His parents, Aimé Derrida and Georgette Sultana Esther Safar, named him Jackie, supposedly after a Hollywood actor, though he would later adopt a more "correct" version of his first name when he moved to Paris. His youth was spent in El-Biar, Algeria. On the first day of the school year in 1942, Derrida was expelled from his lycée by French administrators implementing anti-Semitic quotas set by the Vichy government. He secretly skipped school for a year rather than attend the Jewish lycée formed by displaced teachers and students. At this time, as well as taking part in numerous football competitions (he dreamed of becoming a professional player), Derrida read works of philosophers and writers such as Rousseau, Camus, Nietzsche, and Gide. He began to think seriously about philosophy around 1948 and 1949. He became a boarding student at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand in Paris, which he did not enjoy. Derrida failed his entrance examination twice before finally being admitted to the École Normale Supérieure at the end of the 1951–52 school year. On his first day at the École Normale Supérieure Derrida met Louis Althusser, with whom he became friends. He also became friends with Michel Foucault, whose lectures he attended. After visiting the Husserl Archive in Leuven, Belgium, he completed his philosophy agrégation on Edmund Husserl. Derrida received a grant for studies at Harvard University, and in June 1957 married the psychoanalyst Marguerite Aucouturier in Boston. During the Algerian War of Independence, Derrida asked to teach soldiers' children in lieu of military service, teaching French and English from 1957 to 1959.

In 1967 Derrida published his first three books — "Writing and Difference," "Speech and Phenomena," and "Of Grammatology" — which would make his name. He completed his "Thèse d'État" in 1980; the work was subsequently published in English translation as "The Time of a Thesis: Punctuations." In 1983 Derrida collaborated with Ken McMullen on the film "Ghost Dance." Derrida appears in the film as himself and also contributed to the script. He travelled widely and held a series of visiting and permanent positions. Derrida was director of studies at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris. With François Châtelet and others he in 1983 co-founded the Collège international de philosophie (CIPH), an institution intended to provide a location for philosophical research which could not be carried out elsewhere in the academy. He was elected as its first president. In 1986 Derrida became Professor of the Humanities at the University of California, Irvine. UCI and the Derrida family are currently involved in a legal dispute regarding exactly what materials constitute his archive, part of which was informally bequeathed to the university. He was a regular visiting professor at several other major American universities, including Johns Hopkins University, Yale University, New York University, Stony Brook University, and The New School for Social Research.
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.